The Board, after hearing upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds. that the parties herein are Carrier and Employee within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as amended; this Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and, the parties were given due notice of hearing thereon.
The record in this dispute clearly supports Carrier's conclusion that Claimant was guilty of insubordination, and thereby Rule 11801, when he refused to perform work as directed by his foreman and when he further voiced disrespectful and derogatory remarks to both the foreman and fellow workers.
The Board is not persuaded that Claimant's conduct may be excused on the basis of a claim that he was provoked into such action or because, as Claimant states, he merely "lost his temper" when the foreman handed him a track lining bar. Nor do we find reason to hold that Claimant not be held accountable for his conduct because there may have existed a question as to whether the work required of Claimant in assisting the gang in getting materials and providing for the repair of a broken rail constituted work which could be required of Claimant within the confines of a light duty restriction under which Claimant had been returned to service following a personal injury.
The Board likewise finds no support for the argument that because Claimant thought he had "re-injured" his back some four hours earlier on the date in question and did not want to ao back to the doctor that he had reason to believe it would be all right for him to "just take it easy the rest of the day."
If Claimant believed that he had again injured himself it was incumbent upon him to have reported this injury to his foreman in a timely manner. By having waited some four hours to report this